When President Trump refused to send anyone to the UN climate summit, conservatives cheered. Finally, an American president who wouldn’t play along with the climate hysteria circus.
But here’s the problem: the globalists cheered too.
With no U.S. delegation present for the first time in 30 years, the climate elites saw an opportunity. And they took it.
The Empty Chair Strategy
Journalist Alex Newman attended the summit and brought back a troubling report.
“A lot of the globalists at the U.N. conference said, ‘Hey, this is a great opportunity, because the United States is still involved in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, but they’re not here to obstruct passage of an ambitious deal,'” Newman told Glenn Beck.
Their thinking: push through the most extreme policies possible while America isn’t in the room to object. Then wait out Trump’s term and impose those policies when Democrats return to power.
“Let’s do some great stuff, and then when Trump is gone in three and a half years, we’ll impose that on Americans.”
That’s not paranoia. That’s their actual strategy, spoken aloud at the conference.
The Carbon Budget Bomb
The agreement passed without American input includes something called a “carbon budget.”
The concept is simple and terrifying: the UN claims that four-fifths of the CO2 humans are “allowed” to emit has already been emitted. The remaining one-fifth is all that’s left before… something catastrophic happens, allegedly.
This framework would eventually be used to justify rationing energy use, restricting industrial activity, and controlling economic development — all in the name of staying within the “budget.”
And it was adopted while America’s chair sat empty.
Three and a Half Years of Patience
Newman identified the globalist strategy clearly: “Hey, we’ve got Trump for three and a half more years. Let’s just keep our heads down. We know that he doesn’t believe us. We know that the American people don’t believe us. So let’s just not talk about it too loudly.”
They’re not fighting Trump directly on climate. They’re waiting him out.
Build the framework now. Establish the agreements. Create the international expectations. Then, when a more compliant administration takes over, flip the switch and impose everything on America.
It’s a long game. And they’re very good at long games.
Was Boycotting a Mistake?
Glenn Beck asked the obvious question: “So was this a mistake by not showing up?”
Newman’s answer was honest: “I don’t know.”
On one hand, sending a delegation that objects to everything might have slowed down the worst proposals. American presence historically has moderated UN climate extremism, even under Democratic presidents.
On the other hand, participating legitimizes the process. It accepts the premise that the UN has authority over American energy policy. And it gives the media a target — “Trump’s delegation obstructing climate progress.”
There’s no clean answer. Boycotting freed the globalists to act. Participating would have meant playing their game.
The Real Solution: Full Withdrawal
Here’s where it gets interesting.
Newman revealed that he’s spoken with people at the EPA and State Department who are “seriously considering the possibility of withdrawing from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.”
Not just boycotting summits. Not just ignoring agreements. Actually withdrawing from the treaty framework entirely.
“We have to,” Beck interjected.
He’s right. As long as America remains party to the UN climate convention, future administrations can re-enter agreements, cite treaty obligations, and impose regulations based on international commitments.
Withdrawal eliminates that leverage. It removes the legal framework that climate activists use to demand American compliance. It makes clear that UN climate policy has no authority over American energy decisions.
“Decisively Crush This Climate Hysteria Hoax”
Newman reminded viewers of what Trump said before taking office: “one of the top priorities for the MAGA movement and the United States needs to be to decisively crush this climate hysteria hoax.”
Boycotting a summit isn’t decisive. It’s passive. It lets the process continue without American participation but also without American opposition.
Withdrawing from the framework convention would be decisive. It would signal that America rejects the entire premise — not just specific agreements, but the UN’s authority to regulate global climate policy at all.
That’s the move the globalists fear. And apparently, the Trump administration is considering it.
The Waiting Game
The climate elites are patient. They’ve been building this framework for 30 years. They can wait out one presidency.
Their strategy assumes Trump is temporary. That American politics will eventually return a Democrat to the White House. That all their careful framework-building will pay off when someone sympathetic takes power.
The only way to beat that strategy is to dismantle the framework itself. Don’t just skip the meetings — withdraw from the treaties. Don’t just ignore the agreements — repudiate the underlying conventions.
Make it so the next administration has to rebuild from scratch rather than just flip a switch.
What’s at Stake
The “carbon budget” concept isn’t abstract policy. It’s a blueprint for controlling global economic activity.
If the UN can establish that humanity has a fixed amount of CO2 it’s “allowed” to emit, then some authority has to decide who gets to emit what. That authority would effectively control industrial development, energy production, and economic growth worldwide.
Guess who wouldn’t be making those decisions? The American people.
Guess who would? Unelected bureaucrats at international organizations, NGO activists, and European politicians who think America consumes too much anyway.
That’s the endgame. That’s what the “carbon budget” enables.
The Bottom Line
Trump’s boycott sent a message, but it may have opened a door.
The globalists used America’s absence to advance their most extreme agenda. They’re playing a long game, waiting for Trump to leave and a compliant administration to return.
The countermove is obvious: don’t just boycott the meetings — withdraw from the treaties entirely.
Newman says the administration is considering it. Beck says it’s essential. The logic is clear.
As long as America remains in the UN climate framework, the framework remains a threat. Future presidents can re-enter agreements. Courts can cite treaty obligations. Activists can demand compliance with international commitments.
Withdrawal ends that. Permanently.
Trump promised to “decisively crush” the climate hoax. Withdrawing from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change would be exactly that.
The question is whether he’ll do it.